Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Why do women ruin everything, even for themselves?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious to hear what reasons both men and women would posit to explain the oft-observed phenomenon of women actively ruining things, not only male-dominated organizations and pursuits, but even, as VP commenter AmyJ noted, female-dominated ones:

Women even ruin things meant for women. I've noticed on Pinterest, if someone makes even the slightest negative comment, there are calls for not just banning the commenter, but negative comments all together. The mantra seems to be "I shall not be offended or you will pay"

Is it jealousy combined with solipsism? That doesn't seem to explain why most women who enjoy diverse interests pursue them in the first place. Is it simply shortsightedness combined with illogic leading to a failure to grasp obvious consequences? Is it some sort of Groucho Marx syndrome and being discontent with any club willing to accept them?

I have the vague impression that hypergamy, or at least whatever drives the hypergamous impulse, may be related, but I really couldn't say. I mean, it seems obvious that the very last thing a woman who enjoys historically male pursuits such as science fiction, video games, or hunting would want to do is drive out the very sort of men who create the things she enjoys in the first place, and yet, we see this same pattern playing out again and again.

Take the example of Pinterest. I know, as a blogger, that eliminating negative comments will significantly reduce the number of comments that are made because repetitive "yes, I agree" comments are not only tedious, but cannot inspire much in the way of discussion. So, eliminating negative comments is half-tantamount to eliminating comments altogether. Do the women who want to ban negative comments simply not understand that or do they really want Pinterest to be a place where no one comments on anything? Or, are they attempting to create some fantasy structure where the discourse is active, but everyone only has praise for them?

I don't know. Perhaps the phenomenon is simply the innate female desire to engage with the things they love by "improving" them in some manner.

100 comments:

woeuro
said...

They're fashion slaves so eager to please the invisible eye they feel constantly watching them that they scurry faster and faster until whatever they are doing explodes. Which is why they need a man to seek to please who actually cares about their best interests.

I would direct you to Genesis 3. Particularly vs. 16. Women have been corrupted in the fall and are cursed to desire that which they should not have and to be disappointed in that pursuit. That is an rather expansive reading of the verse, but I believe that the curse of the fall is the reason women act like this.

Men find that environment boring, but women love to have lengthy discussions about nothing, read 1000s of identical cheerful comments, think about the most childish drivel, etc. It's not entirely due to mental cretinism, they simply have no use for intellectual competition or achievement

Carl Jung made the observation that women's greatest flaw is thinking they are always right, and that it as necessary for them to overcome it.

And in "Defending the Caveman," the author noted that women think men are always wrong, which is the same as thinking women are always right. He said he mentioned this on stage one time, and a woman stood up in the audience and yelled, "They ARE wrong."

My experience has been women are far more wrong than right but don't know it. I suspect it's due to their natural socialism - which is a delusion and perhaps even mental illness (i.e, the inherent imperfection of people), and I can't imagine that "hypergamy" (sic) has anything to do with it.

I believe that the curse of the fall is the reason women act like this.

This is correct. at he heart of female psychology is a contradiction. they desire both to rule and to be ruled. Godmade them hypergamous. the fall made themcontrolling. they desire boh at thesame time. so the want to join male dominatex groups to satisfy hypergamy, but they ruin it hrough a desire to control.

It is a war - a constant ongoing battle to not get sucked into their messed up logic and fitness tests. Trying to understand the dynamics of a particular social group of women is like working with Jane Goodall to understand a group of primates except the primates are more consistent and rational. This is a lesson that I learned observing and unfortunately being pulled into at church many years ago. Saying anything bad is horrible except for the woman herself and do not try to get her to see the inconsistencies in her logic - you will lose. All a real man can do is learn to identity the situation, and avoid getting entangled. And remember, the white knights, betas and grammas who enjoy participating in that crap are not your friends - they are the vilest of creatures who enable the women in their destructive activities.

At first glance these may seem contradictory (the self is all that exists vs. others are important), but in a woman's mind they actually end up reinforcing each other in a vicious feedback loop.

Solipsism means that whatever that woman is feeling, right now, is the only thing that matters, that is to say the truth. It also means that even if she did not create or build something, well, she is here now, so how she feels about it matters.

Herd mentality means that whatever a woman is feeling, right now, also needs to be felt (affirmed) by others (the rest of the herd), and if this positive feedback is not obtained, well, then she is offended, which is not allowed under the solipsism rule above.

It doesn't matter whether the existing system or structure was built by men or women, when an empowered woman joins it, the above feedback loop kicks in and it's all downhill from there.

On top of the readily apparent and much discussed loss of men having a backbone, I have a theory.

I believe that women's current ability and desire to ruin everything stems from the loss of community gatherings of women working together to accomplish specific tasks. Sewing, baking, pottery, etc that they did for centuries. In recent human history this was then replaced by daily gatherings for tea, coffee, watching the kids, etc.

What these gatherings did was serve to ground the woman in reality of what other women dealt with on a daily basis. They affirmed each others good decisions and shamed their bad ones. Yet all of them learned from each other's decisions, even the bad ones, while also passing on the knowledge to daughters that they'd be training in whatever tasks they gathered to do. Thus was woman reinforcing each other while building a community AND teaching their daughters the same.

The modern woman has.... the internet. Facebook. Twitter. Pinterest.

They get enough affirmation of their own life, without any shaming of their choices. Any shaming can be written off as 'they don't really know me' because they really don't. No one has the same proximity to a woman they used to, and while men can move past their emotional reactions to look at things logically criticized, women can't without the day to day interaction that they can't escape and no longer have.

So women joining these 'clubs' are yearning for a connection, yet don't dedicate or sacrifice enough time to truly form one. When they first start to, they'll start to garner the true criticism that comes with true human connections. Yet, because she's not FORCED to deal with this person, and because she's not used to such criticism, she pushes back against it or simply drops out of the club, forum, internet, ect. Or she wields the rules of whatever organization it is like an axe to heavy for her to properly grasp, but never the less chops the offender off at the knees.

Thus the herd mentality, solipsism, and hypergamy ruin the modern american woman's pursuits of happiness.

If you could ever get that ruination circuit to complete, it would ruin itself somehow. I'm working on the wiring now. I think a little refuse is all it usually takes. Well, and napping while they talk about fixing the world.

How a woman views negative comments when they're directed towards her: you don't support me; you're against me; you're trying to cut me down; you're negating me. She doesn't view them as an opportunity to self-reflect and improve, if she deems they have merit (which, to her, they never do). She doesn't have the ability to shrug them off if they don't apply (which is always the case, in her mind). This is because women are herd creatures, and they are dependent on the acceptance of the herd for their sense of well-being. Any attempt to criticize is viewed as an attempt to cut her off from the herd, which threatens her survival. This is why opinions of others matter to women, why it's relatively easy to shame them, and why they tend to go with the crowd. Now, the important point is this: all of those interpretations of negative comments only matter to a woman when the negative comments are directed at her, someone with whom she's connected, or someone with whom she identifies or sympathizes. Anyone else is fair game for negative comments, and as most of you've probably seen, women can pile on to someone they don't like with the viciousness of a pack of wild animals. Women are very tribal in that regard: only that with which we identify is under the protection of whatever rules we recognize. It's exactly the sort of tribal instinct Christ admonished us to overcome ("love your enemy"), but women have great difficulty overcoming this. Tribalism is deeply ingrained in women. Nietzsche recognized this long ago. His is one of the most profound observations about the nature of women, which is why I quote it often:

Are you a slave? If so, you cannot be a friend. Are you a tyrant? If so, you cannot have friends. In woman, a slave and a tyrant have all too long been concealed. For that reason, woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knows only love. In a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love.

This is why women ruin everything, and why they shouldn't be in positions of great influence or ultimate authority over others.

Some men here are probably wondering why women can also be nasty towards members of their own tribes, i.e. their husbands. Nietzsche further explains: "And in the enlightened love of a woman, too, there is still the unexpected attack and lightning and night, along with the light." I'm less able to understand the underlying cause of this. Sometimes perhaps it's the tendency women have to try to "improve" things; other times, it just seems like women are like children and lack the ability to control their ever-changing emotions.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that, particularly now, they are generations of naturally retarded, as a group, regarding construction, who have been raised since Stanton that the most important thing they must do with their life is build things.

It is as if the social contract to build a world was awarded - at first as an experiment, now as a mandate - to a construction firm consisting of people who are confused by hammers.

Over time, the hammer proficient have become convinced that a heap of shattered construction materials is what was paid for, and that their currency lies, not in framing a house, but in mincing about, pretending that wreckage is a house they would or could live in.

40 years ago, when "women's lib" was starting to become a mass movement and not just a cover story for Life, Time, and Newsweek, I asked a girl (age 22 or so) why she was doing something or other that made no sense. "It's the liberated thing to do!" she chirped. I said "liberated," by definition, meant having no need to conform to arbitrary standards. That stumped her. Blank stare. Conversation over.

I'm not sure this exactly fits with the current discussion, but do you have any reaction to the opinions of male sports coaches who have built careers coaching women, like Geno Auriemma and Anson Dorrance, on how to coach men differently than women? For instance, a lot of what Dorrance says in this interview seems to jive with what you continually write about, such as female solipsism:

"General criticism with women, every woman thinks you're talking about her. They don't need videotape. You can make a general criticism and even the women that aren't committing this mistake will feel like "oh my gosh, he's talking about me," even though that's the last one you're talking about, you know, the woman who probably feels that you're talking about the most. "

Dorsey, thanks for the ROK link. I was thinking about that post when I started reading this one.

I wish I could remember which podcast I heard this on, "Women are more programmable". It wasn't meant as a slam, but those controlling the media know it's much easier to manipulate women by portraying an image that other women are doing or thinking or using something.

There is no "then." Women are incapable of linear thinking. There is only right now. I feel this way about a subject right now, but I am free to completely oppose my own thinking in a different right now.

When one woman realizes the danger and tries to warn the "late comers," she might as well be cutting down an oak with a paper towel. Those late-c0omers are in a different right now.

But when, in their piece-meal fashion, women reach the point of realizing that they did indeed kill the gift horse, they will lament that men should have stopped them.

Obvious consequences to men. Women see what they think should be as what will be. There are no other consequences. Even when there are, and the finally become obvious, it's not because of their decisions. It is obviously because of something else unrelated to what is being described (hamsterbatics).

I mean, it seems obvious that the very last thing a woman who enjoys historically male pursuits such as science fiction, video games, or hunting would want to do is drive out the very sort of men who create the things she enjoys in the first place, and yet, we see this same pattern playing out again and again.

It is obvious to some. I have seen women cringe in groups such as this when other women come to join in. She realizes what the end result will be, as you described. Here's what happens, being successful in a male endeavor is incredibly satisfying. Gaining real respect from men in a male pursuit, let's just say that it feels incredible.

What many women wish to do is give this feeling to other women by inviting them in to have the same success. Only most women will never have the same success so they modify the rules to make it easier for the women in an effort to imitate that feeling. Deep down, though, these women know that it is not the same because the rules have changed. They will not admit that to themselves so they blame the men and their dominance on their own incompetence. Hence, the rules change even more to aid these women. The men leave and it continues to get even worse. Now there are no men to get attention from, so it's time to move on to the next male dominated space.

As for ruining their own spaces, female hierarchy can be brutal. One dare not hurt the mother hen's feelings because her entire herd will stamp you out. She and they must protect her feelings at all costs. It is considered better to have strict enforcement of speech or anything else that might shatter hers and their little world of superiority. Even when the criticism would be highly beneficial to the group as a whole.

As others have said, the part about banning/deleting comments/ers on a lot of female blogs is due to herd psychology and emotional solipsism. Being part of the herd (to a moderate or large degree) is a primary biological/psychological need for most women.

And very much like a horse herd, the alpha mares impose their will on the other mares by biting them until they comply. If they won't submit then either the dissenters are driven out or in some cases you get a new alpha mare.

It's the female form of social competition. Dominating your competition by limiting their ability to outshine you in your weak areas, even 'mandating' that your strong areas be deemed 'better'. This urge to dominate, in my opinion, led to things like Prohibition as well.

Used to be we called these women 'busybodies' or some such, and tried to eliminate them from our social circles. But they all got together, called their demands 'Feminism', appealed to women's urge to 'improve' (her man, usually), and began to exert those very same shaming tactics used to get Prohibition started, and fuels the War on Porn.

My theory, basically, is that women's urge to control the social sphere is their analog to the male urge to compete on an individual/team level. Men tend to pursue tangible wealth (power), while women pursue moral superiority (she who sets the rules, wins the game).

Women have a need to control everything which is really how their hypergamy manifests in all things.

In female interactions there are constant struggles to be the matriarch/queen bee. Go to a family gathering where the old matriarch has passed and watch the subtle fights between the women for control over the other women.

So it is also with men, a woman tries to control the man, or in groups the men. Those that she can control are not fit to reproduce with, those she cannot are. A "shit test" or "fitness test" is really an attempt to control the man. If she controls, the man loses.

You don't switch behavior patterns on or off, for a woman the constant mode is an attempt to control all that is around them.

Whether you want to call it the curse of eve, or their evolutionary psychology, or whatever it doesn't matter.

This is why women don't (intentionally at least) make their sons into alphas. There is no "switch off" other than actually understanding themselves and consciously putting a stop to their behavior. Their basic social drive is to control all others.

It also explains their dissatisfaction because you cannot control everything, no matter how hard you try.

The only world they know is the world they see, hear, feel, and experience...plus what is happening in the moment. You have an objection to that or tell of future consequences...her brain immediately goes "does not compute".

What's sad is as men become increasingly more like women...common sense and logic is also leaving them. The ones that still have it get shouted down by the "your a (fill in the blank with the trendy word)" crowd.

In my experience, men are more willing to live and let live -- to let things go. Women are more likely to get upset and make a big deal about something that bothers them.

Back when men were the head of the family, they were able to rein this in. Now, two things have changed that. First, the man isn't considered the head of the family any longer, so the woman feels free to go her own way. Second, women are interacting publicly without their husbands even knowing what they're doing or saying. (And even if they did, it wouldn't matter.)

Let's not forget fear. We're essentially dependent, so we're pretty much always sniffing out a way to ensure we get the goodies over someone else. It's so knee-jerk/irrational, we frequently cut off our noses to spite our faces. That curse of Eve thing then gets added on top: a desire to dominate without the means to do so. I think this is manifest all too often by mothers who bully/guilt/cripple their children.

>I'm not sure why it's important to understand why women do these, it is important to understand that they do, to mange our interactions with women, but I am not clear as to the why matters.

It matters because it's not so much a male-female distinction as it is a maturity-immaturity distinction.

Therefore it's in everybody's best interests for non-productive women to be pushed out of their comfort zones of childish, resource-draining privilege and into the kind of productive adulthood that is default expected of men, for exactly the same reasons.

Gaining real respect from men in a male pursuit, let's just say that it feels incredible.

It sure does. It's much more satisfying to get respect from men than acceptance from women.

I'll give you a plus one for being way ahead of the herd, at least on paper.

Thanks. As someone who's never particularly wanted to be part of the herd, there's no disincentive for going against popular opinion. The discussions here and at VP have also helped me build up and refine my rational side, and to learn to deal with criticism MUCH better.

This is a really difficult question. I'm leaning toward a combination of consequence blindness, emotional turbulence, the instinct to nurture/nest/improve the environment, and emotional decision making.

It can't be solipsism, because that only came into play recently with the femprop grl pwr thing. Solipsistic women believe that life is a movie and they're the leading woman, and before feminism the plot of that movie didn't necessarily include traditionally masculine success the way it does now. So that's out as a root cause.

I want throw out herd behavior as well, but I can't put it into words yet. Doesn't feel right.

Maybe an example will help. When whatsherface the video game feminazi got that developer fired over a dongle joke, the tactics she used were herd behaviors. Shaming, martyrdom, etc. But the initial desire to make video game conferences comfortable for women...that was different. That's not herd instinct. It's something else.

Will you elaborate a bit on productive adulthood for a woman (especially after child-rearing is nearly completed)? I'm in what feels like in-between years. My young adult child isn't quite launched (and struggling, so requires more hands-on input than we'd thought he would at this stage). I'm still the primary care-taker of heath and home, etc., and earn a modest income as a freelancer writer. I've been separated from my husband for several months, but about to rejoin him. I'd like him to feel/think all his years of hard work are not for naught. Thanks.

That's why they ruin things. Women crave drama, so they are prone to blow trivial things way out of proportion in an effort to slake their drama thirst.

They subconsciously shit-test, and so push and push and push until someone pushes back and tells them to knock it off. If nobody pushes back, their antics get more and more outrageous in a subconscious effort to provoke a response.

Solipsism means they are only dimly aware, if aware at all, of the impact their antics have on those around them. So they realize when they are destroying a community and pissing everybody off.

And there's a natural tendency to seek attention, so being at the center of some sort of fracas serves that need as well.

Combine all of those and you get a self-fuelling tornado of destruction sweeping through an organization.

Thing is, all those behaviors are feral female behavior. The behavior of uncivilized women. Women who learn to be civilized learn to control those impulses, and so don't pose a threat to institutions. Likewise organizations that don't tolerate uncivilized behavior don't face destruction from feral female members either. The uncivilized women learn to behave themselves or they're thrown out.

And that's what it boils down to today, the complete lack of desire to exert control over women. A woman goes on some irrational bender and nobody will stop her.

Oh, so unfair! So... patriarchal! How dare anyone "control" a woman! You caveman...

"Be quiet and sit down." is the right response. "Be quiet and sit down, or leave." is the follow-up.

Everybody needs to practice that. Expect to catch a hell of a lot of flack for it. But you'll also get a lot of respect too.

Women are designed to keep a home not a community. Trying to fit that square peg into the round hole destroys civilizations. Like trying to use a microscope to study the stars, the focus and the lens is not designed for it.

I am starting to think the mormons might be correct in that no woman gets into heaven without being married i.e. she has no ability to get in on her own right and can only do so by hanging on to her husbands coat tails - rather like me and the LORD Jesus.

Can you imagine a single woman in heaven? First thing she'd do when she arrived is work to "improve" it and the place would turn into hell in short order but naturally this wouldn't be her fault...

Women view themselves as victims of their own emotions. ("I can't help what I feel") Women being emotional creatures, use these same emotions as the guiding force for all decision making. They, therefore, believe themselves unaccountable for any and all consequences stemming from emotion fueled behavior. Because women then view consequences as random and unavoidable, they live moment to moment guided by gut feelings and knee jerk reactions. Women who live like this, notice a lot of bad things tend to happen to them and that a lot of people tend to get upset at them seemingly for no reason! Because women have a victim mentality of their emotions, they assume that the string of bad things that happen to them are the fault of the people who are jealous of them and want to ruin their happiness. Happiness being the only conceivable reason they have for anyone to do anything. Therefore women lead hypocritical lives in which they ruthlessly attack anyone who gets in the way of their happiness,(what their emotions tell them to chase) all the while ruining things for themselves and others unaware of any personable responsibility. This also results in extremely self righteous attitudes when questioned about "thinking things through" or "solving problems"

"they attempting to create some fantasy structure where the discourse is active, but everyone only has praise for them"

A vibrant community where they get praise and positive energies only. I'd say this is the no. 1 female aspiration, and that hypergamy is only a tool that serves this instinct.

Look at it this way. That fantasy community is the family. Why would they want anyone to be unhappy and making other people feel bad. They want harmony and ponies and rainbows and smiley faces and full happy bellies.

Conflict and competition and negative energy ruin the whole thing. How can you be happy and rainbowy when they dont like your dress and criticize you.

You (vox) praise Susan HUS for going in this direction. I'd say, a woman not going in this direction is lost as a woman. Just like a man not going for a competitive frontal no-bullshit arena is lost as a man.

Not sure what would be a solution for this- as I dont see the problem.

The short answer to your question about women is that while most women are sometimes in need, all women are always in WANT.

Call it the Female Imperative or Original Sin or preservation of mitochondrial DNA, but the driver is the same - women simply cannot be without want. To be a woman is to be in want. I suspect there's no distinction in a woman's mind between her needs and her wants. They appear to be indistinguishable to her, even if it's easy for others to do so. An easy test of this theory: ask any woman, straight up, to tell you her needs. What you'll get is a litany of want, with or without any reference to the things she actually needs. She can't really be blamed for this; society has forever defined 'need' in female terms so she has no other internal barometer for 'need' other than want. For this to change, society needs to stop defining 'need' in female terms, which is unlikely to happen.

The dangers of not doing so are legion, as we all know, but they're all borne out of the same essential conflict. A woman is first and foremost Mother Nature's handmaiden, so when her wants conflict with her needs, herself being unaware of the difference, it feels like the very vacuum her mistress abhors. The feeling of emptiness must be intense and the compulsion to fill it overwhelming. If she's been told by society that her needs define society then, to her, something is very wrong when her wants are unmet. To deal with this 'need', solipsism turns quickly to rationalisation - i.e. if she feels this way then other women must surely also feel that way and a worldwide red alert must be issued lest civilisation come crashing down. This nuclear core of the hamster drive can convert even the most beautiful blossoming rose to poison ivy at the speed of a synapse.

Conclusion: stop responding to what the garden wants and give it what it needs.

its their most beloved hobby. Thus... they are always on the look out for something to be outraged over... and thus... they complain. But since they are just complaining to complain... those that listen and heed the complaints... end up fixing things that weren't broken in the first place.

There is an ancient truism that is totally antithetical to femininity. "Better is the enemy of good."

By indulging in their emotional outburst, which is big girl fun, they are starting the process that destroys the things they love. But they can't help it. They aren't out to destroy. They just can't not scratch that emotional itch.

Women generally approach things not by asking "what is the result?" Instead, they ask, "how do I feel about it?"

Now, if the results are demonstrably good, they will be showered with praise, and feel good about themselves.

Failure is usually the fault of others, so they can still feel good about themselves.

Look at public education. They run it. It's failed. But it's not their fault. It's the lack of funding and bad parenting.

Marriage. Divorce is the man's fault. Or the woman's uncontrollable feelings.

Church. Modern worship music is geared toward them. So is the preaching. Fathers Day is coming up. The guys will hear how they need to be Jesus to their wives. We suck. Mothers Day? Guys, you don't appreciate your wives enough. Churches are losing numbers. Why? Because guys need to "man up" and get more involved.

Military. What are the results of women in combat? Who cares? I don't like the way I feel when I consider that women aren't allowed. Let's change that.

Criticism is met with contempt, but they generally can't handle not feeling good about something.

So they continue ruinous practices because to repent would be to admit responsibility for the failure.

And that just doesn't feel good.

You don't like my Pinterest post? It can't be because of what I put there. Why, it's the bestest thing eh-vur! And you should be banned, because your opinion makes me feel bad.

Crab basket and emotional outburst pleasure, as Ian Ironwood and Nate said, but there's something deeper, a more fundamental way to classify the whole range of behavior.

Naturally, I have a theory. Women are designed to find a strong man, latch on, and drive away competitors. Shit testing is a way to test the strength of a man.

Women form unstable bonds with each other because otherwise they could peacefully share the same desirable man.

They are designed to scatter and blow up social circles until they find a stable male strength point, then drive away competition.

The stronger the man, the more women he can manage. This is an acceptable tradeoff for the female reproductive agenda. The more they are sharing, the harder they attempt to ruin the situation. If the situation stays un-ruined, it means that the man's strength is worth sharing.

Wow,I'm impressed by the number of women-hating let-your-pyschopath freak flag fly comments.

TO address Vox's original post, the impulse isn't just limited to women. It's a statist-versus-freedom issue. Single women tend to be statists, but the impulse to ban negative comments with threats of Federal violence runs strong in the White House.

It can't be solipsism, because that only came into play recently with the femprop grl pwr thing. Solipsistic women believe that life is a movie and they're the leading woman, and before feminism the plot of that movie didn't necessarily include traditionally masculine success the way it does now. So that's out as a root cause.

After sleeping, I realized this paragraph was a very poor explanation.

Before feminism, women ruined every male space they touched, but they weren't allowed to enter them either. They were solipsistic then (my life is a movie and I'm the star) and still ruining things, but had no power to really ruin things.

Wow,I'm impressed by the number of women-hating let-your-pyschopath freak flag fly comments.

This is a dumb thing to say. The comments have been pretty good. You probably have mistaken condescension for viciousness.

TO address Vox's original post, the impulse isn't just limited to women. It's a statist-versus-freedom issue. Single women tend to be statists, but the impulse to ban negative comments with threats of Federal violence runs strong in the White House.

This is not a dumb thing to say. I'm also of the impression that there's a distribution of statists in both sexes, and women are merely shifted to the left.

It is because they crave empathy. The empathogasm is intensely pleasurable. When women converse they seek empathogasms, that is the moment when they finally land on something where they can say "yea, I know just how you FEEL"

Men are not seeking to match up, emotionally, unless you call simple enthusiasm emotion. They cannot get men to even nod to the emotional potential of a group dynamic, let alone start working towards the empathogasmic climax.

TO address Vox's original post, the impulse isn't just limited to women.

Well there you have it. Both a demonstration of HOW they ruin things and a peek at why. The most intense empathogasms are group empathogasms, and unless you even things out with "men/women do it too" you lower the likelihood of getting there.

they will nullify statistics with "we are all individuals" will on route to showing they are in group think.

Moral indignation is an easy way to add perceived value to oneself by emotionally coercing the majority who are too fearful to confront the indignation or don't feel like wasting their time. Power through victimization.

Recently I've taken to, no matter what the content or context of the situation, responding with:"I love it when you play hard to get."

I figure it acknowledges the value they are trying to create while identifying they are escalating a sexual confrontation they will lose.

Not sure if that's really what's going on, but I've seen a marked spike in getting laid since... plus they stop acting in such a f'ing annoying manner and take on a submissive attitude.

Now if someone could just tell me how the hell to deal with the passive-aggressive men without burning everything to the ground, I'd be good. Or well, tell me how to stop ending up around such boring boys.

I've got to ask... Do you terrify women, like a strong man does, now? Seriously. While some women, feminist types, absolutely hate me, very few will ever peep up. Not in single combat for sure. A few might... venture a query... but timidly and no more. Do you get that now?

Ah, and see... What you are, to my mind, isn't feminist. I would, from what I have seen, mostly (you still have, well... girly bits which... bring out the man, but...), be able to call you a friend, and in some situations... superior or equal, depending on the situation. But then you wouldn't ask for it, you would simply do it. If feminists want equality, all they have to do is walk the walk they talk.

If too, I would, mostly, rather women didn't do either. Exceptions, and yada yada, but... No offense, just a note. [he's still a neanderthal, mind you]

Women love to be outraged. Its an emotional buzz for them. Its their greatest most favorite self-indulgence.

A man must always be able to recognize the difference in a woman's typical itch scratching... and a genuine problem that may need to be addressed.

Its not as hard as it sounds. If its really a problem you'll know about it before she 'splodes about it. Thus the vast majority of the time... you should treat her 'sploding the same way her daddy did when she was 7.

I have absolutely no idea how other women view me. If I had to guess, I would say they are confused by me.

I have spent the greater part of my life striving to transcend my baser nature, which includes overcoming feminine weaknesses. One of the rewards of that transcendance is general acceptance by men -- as you said, you could call me friend, and that's no small thing. But the price a woman pays for this is very high. I live a life that consists mostly of solitude -- I can never be an official member of Team Man and I am an outcast from Team Woman -- and that's very difficult for a female. Maybe that's one reason a lot of women have little interest in overcoming their feminine foibles. No matter how well a woman is able to transcend herself, she still has a strong biological need to be part of a group. Isolation is a very high price to pay.

You write the way Dostoevsky's characters talk. I admit, it's a translation, and that is, if you aren't offended, and of course you aren't, forgive me, and it's more than one translation really, but perhaps you could venture to explain this affectation? Yes, yes of course, and I don't mean to say that you're acting out of any sort of false presentation, it was a foolish choice of words.

Koanic: Women are designed to find a strong man, latch on, and drive away competitors. Shit testing is a way to test the strength of a man. Women form unstable bonds with each other because otherwise they could peacefully share the same desirable man. They are designed to scatter and blow up social circles until they find a stable male strength point, then drive away competition.

That's a good point. A while back on my site, I was wondering about why women often seem to make decisions to do things that they actually don't want to do. For example, deep down I believe most normal women would rather be mothers than cube-bots, but they makes choices that lead to the cube rather than the cradle. Several people came to a similar conclusion that you did, which was essentially that the women are doing this as a way of fitness testing, in order to find what you called "a stable male strength point".

"Women form unstable bonds with each other because otherwise they could peacefully share the same desirable man. They are designed to scatter and blow up social circles until they find a stable male strength point, then drive away competition."

The problem I have with this is the notion that women are naturally monogamous. They aren't. Chicks need to be in a group.

Many if not most, would be happier with two or three other wives to share a guy with.

Nate said: Many if not most, would be happier with two or three other wives to share a guy with.

This is an interesting and not unacceptable prospect. It addresses the woman's need to compete for male attention (keeping each wife on her toes?) and also gives her a "break" from the tendency to nag and fault find the guy because . . . well, because we sort of miss the intense attention of courtship and like to keep calling attention (even negative) to ourselves (?). Anyway, with multiple wives, we would direct our competitive/fault-finding nature to the other wives (hopefully, not her kids). Further, we can share the duties of wifery. For instance, if one wife likes housework, let her at it. If another wife likes to get out and earn a few bucks, let her go. If another is great entertaining or educating the kids - hoo hoo! Now, I'm sure this is hardly an ideal situation much of the time, but there is potential. Oh, did I forget to mention that we ladies really aren't interested in sex as often as men . . . so this could really spice things up. Is there new testament admonition against polygamy?

PS. Thank you all for not responding to my pathetic request to define my life for me. I asked yesterday what a wife in transition should do to be a mature adult of value. Crap. A Guinness under my belt and I get all blathery. That's another way we women ruin everything - try to make it all about us. 13 days and I join my hubby in Hawaii. Phew.

The same reason men ruin everything: lack of proper childhood training. In the case of the US, the everyone's a winner even when they're a loser nonsense. The failure of parents to actually parent.Well, if you fail at life, you know you fail, but you can't actually be a failure, because all your life people have told you how wonderful and perfect you are. So the people who are now pointing out your failure must be wrong and out to get you. Mommy, Daddy, and your first grade teacher didn't lie, right? So all the driving the standards out (and the people who've maintained them) is just self-justification.

Further, we can share the duties of wifery. For instance, if one wife likes housework, let her at it. If another wife likes to get out and earn a few bucks, let her go. If another is great entertaining or educating the kids - hoo hoo!

Why do women ruin everything? Wrong question. It's feminists who are ruining everything. Why do feminists ruin everything? Because men allow it. For me, the interesting question is: Why do men allow feminists to ruin everything? Suffragettes didn't "win" women's suffrage; men gave it to them. Why?

Solipsism + herd mentality explains feminists' destructiveness. What explains men's passivity? (quoting R. Emmett Tyrrell from memory:) "They took to wearing trousers. They burned their hellish bras. But still the fabled chauvinists would not take the field against them." Why not?

When did men become so pusillanimous that the manosphere ever became necessary? How did it happen, and why?

Blaming women makes no sense. It's like blaming Germany for rolling over France in a matter of weeks. France bore responsibility, if not for Germany's victory then for the easiness of it.

This. Why are so many men so incredibly passive in all walks of their lives?

Because prosperity didn't require anything more of them.

But I think it's slightly irrelevant. I think it's normal for perhaps half - maybe even two thirds - of men to be fairly passive. But the remaining fraction of active men set the tone and made the decisions. Everyone else - women and passive men - fell in behind the leaders.

Then universal suffrage among men came into being. It wasn't just accomplished men, but all men, who got to vote. That meant the passive guys were now part of the decision making process, and they voted for whatever was easiest.

Because they are ultimately ruled by emotion. The good ones know it and can account for it.

Men can be ruled by reason if they work hard at it.

That means emotion in the service of reason, not reason in the service of emotion. For example, many leftists and women think they are being reasonable, what they are is finding rationalizations to justify emotional needs.

But so are "Churchians" in this category (and the Jewish version of the same). These are people who use religion to fulfill emotional imperatives much like the above used their reason to fulfill emotional imperatives.

They are all ultimately ruled by emotion, not reason.

When men abandon reason and their responsibility to the truth and to do good and fear God, then women become their masters. That is what we are seeing now.

> we would direct our competitive/fault-finding nature to the other wives

Anyone who thinks living in a household with that level of strive is a good thing is more than welcome to it. Polygamy may seem like a solution since our current system is so far from what it should be, but it would be just as bad, if not worse.

"Anyone who thinks living in a household with that level of strive is a good thing is more than welcome to it. Polygamy may seem like a solution since our current system is so far from what it should be, but it would be just as bad, if not worse."

People can be reckless, women love a henhouse and beauty is a lost art. I just joined pinterest to look at art, any rosemahling and I never comment b/c its a waste of time. To comment at VP is a enjoyable privilege and not a waste of time, its a different venue or forum.

For me to explore why WRE further gives me a headache and heartache. Even I manage to ruin everything and I try to hit reset. Sometimes it works in my or our favor and sometimes I manage to makes things worse. So I say nothing, don't react and sigh more these days.

On the snowflake factor, WRE is a larger problem when you drag people down into the gutter or become so self destructive that you hurt everyone else around you and destroy a home, a set of dishes and land up in the ER for some reason or another.

Women think too much, fuss to much and worry too much. We live in time, a short life, what does all this vexation matter? The common reply is, "I feel..." so its an emo thing.

If the question is why do women oppose negative comments and criticism and only want feel good belly rubs, I've got a theory.

It's because most women do not want to put forth actual effort - as in sweat, muscle, frustration, etc.. So they attach to 'things' that they 'like' because it requires no effort and makes them feel good. Small dogs, Pinterest, pictures, flowers, Facebook posts, food (but not cooking), etc. But 'liking' and 'not liking' things is purely feelings based. So when a person disagrees with something a person likes, you can't really defend it because it's just a feeling. So the response is to shame the critic for negative thoughts or ban them all together.

However, 'liking' is not 'doing.' When a person 'does' something, the end result, whether it's a final score, a finished product, a successful journey, etc. has so much invested in it that it is difficult to tear down. So when someone criticizes something someone does, it comes off as either weak (if it is from a person with no credibility) or as constructive (if it comes from an actual authority).

"The problem I have with this is the notion that women are naturally monogamous. They aren't. Chicks need to be in a group.

Many if not most, would be happier with two or three other wives to share a guy with."

The notion that women are naturally monogamous is not contained in what I wrote. In fact, it suggests the reverse - that women will accept sharing in order to secure a stronger man who can create a more stable strength point.

In practice, the sharing often goes the other way - woman getting what she needs from multiple male sources.

"What many women wish to do is give this feeling to other women by inviting them in to have the same success. Only most women will never have the same success so they modify the rules to make it easier for the women in an effort to imitate that feeling."

Sounds vaguely homosexual.

"Thank you all for not responding to my pathetic request to define my life for me. I asked yesterday what a wife in transition should do to be a mature adult of value. Crap. A Guinness under my belt and I get all blathery. That's another way we women ruin everything - try to make it all about us. 13 days and I join my hubby in Hawaii. Phew."

You are getting warmer. You are very,very close to actually finding what you were looking for with your original comment.I'm proud of you.

At the major, daily newspaper where I work, the opinion is almost unanimous that it would be best to eliminate comments altogether. Why? Because the commenters are frequently offensive to the arrogant, juvenile, Leftist imbeciles that write the stories. It's that simple. Their arrogance leads them to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but insane. Their cowardice leads them to feel that anyone who expresses contempt for them should be silenced.

Women are very specialized creatures relative to men. All of their mental programming is focused around two connected goals: 1) achieving the best possible combination of "alpha fucks and beta bucks" from men 2) ensuring survival of her children

A woman's essential biological condition is motherhood. Historically speaking, getting pregnant wasn't a choice that women would mull over, it was a given. Another given was that she would rely on a man or men for protection, provisioning, and leadership (rather than trying to organize these things herself.)

These conditions are fundamental to how female psychology and behavior developed -- it's all about creating the best environment for her offspring's survival and then caring for them in a way that maximizes their chances of making it to adulthood.

This is why, when allowed to participate in the 'public sphere,' women set about trying to make all of the world into a big kindergarten classroom. Their emphasis on feelings, being nice (political correctness,) and security makes sense when your life is based around taking care of young children. It also make them inherently and unavoidably unsuited for leadership or decision making roles of any sort involving adults.

A lot of interesting insight from some of you. Some comments appear to be from a sixteen year old, I hope.

There is something wrong with our culture. It's bizarre, weird, I guess what I trying to say is, what we are accustomed to is inherently "normal," we lose sight of just how screwed up we are as a culture. Men and women, whores and enablers and decent men and women are lost in the shuffle. Most people have tremendous egos that they are more interested in protecting than finding truth or having the courage to look in the mirror and recognize their own faults and build themselves, become a better person. Egos destroy relationships, who's right and who's wrong. Catch 22, the person who decides to recognize their faults, admit their faults and build themselves will always be the "bad guy" when the other person takes advantage of the advantageous position they are in by saying "I told you so" (the ego) to the person who has decided to become a better person. The one saying "I told you so" has one interest in mind,being right, not growing. In a woman's mind there is only one thing that is important in a relationship..... It is the trump card, the be all end all, nothing else matters but this one thing..... Loyalty. If a woman is loyal in a relationship, nothing else matters. She can be disrespectful, she can continuously beat her man down with down talking, making a man feel unattractive, falsely accuse a man of being a cheater when in fact he is a decent man with class, integrity and is, in fact, loyal as well. Loyalty is the ultimate trump card for women. One dimensional. Only one thing matters, loyalty. Which if you think about it, is the easiest thing for a woman to accomplish since sex for a woman is a lot different for a man. A woman has to be extremely comfortable to have sex with a man or extremely shallow. One of the two. Most men can have sex with a woman even if he doesn't like her. It's just not the same. A woman doesn't go home frustrated at the end of the night saying "damn it! I didn't get laid." Being loyal is easy for a woman